lol that's not what I said at all! Read the link I posted clarifying the FRC's reasoning behind lobbying the bill. It was about changing wording
defining homosexuality, not about allowing the ugandan organization to murder

but think of all the busywork that can be created and funded thru NGOs and such to get the 98% of the rest of the country to jump on the group think
boycott bandwagon.

It would seem the Tea Party was doomed from the start, because I can't see why anyone would want 'more tax', which usually grows government, when it
isn't mutating into something else, like a technofascist state. What a target for infiltrators. A big ass target.

Thus, we have our 'proof' that people who want small, accountable government, whose sole duty is to protect Liberty, are really homophobes, and
racists. It was infiltrated, and will always be infiltrated, by those who want to assimilate their power trip, into our lives. See Emanuel, rahm.

As a gay man, I for one feel it is unfair to put us all in one category. I think the whole Kiss In thing was stupid, and did NOTHING but make gay
people look stupid. I also don't agree that we are all hypocritical in our agenda. I am so freaking sick of this whole issue. The way I see
Chick-fil_A is they don't support gays and therefor I will not support them. Plain and simple. I do think that too many people think that the whole
anti-gay marriage thing is the only thing that Chick-fil-A has done that against us, but that's not the case. They have refused service in West
Hollywood, and would not cater an event in that was held by the GLBT, they also fund anti-gay groups as well. You know what though this is America,
and if that's what they want to do so be it. I will just boycott them and that is it. For me case closed. I am sick of hearing SOME of the LGBT
whining about this crap though. I wish they would just shut up and leave it alone!!!!

Originally posted by kurthall
As a gay man, I for one feel it is unfair to put us all in one category. I think the whole Kiss In thing was stupid, and did NOTHING but make gay
people look stupid. I also don't agree that we are all hypocritical in our agenda. I am so freaking sick of this whole issue. The way I see
Chick-fil_A is they don't support gays and therefor I will not support them. Plain and simple. I do think that too many people think that the whole
anti-gay marriage thing is the only thing that Chick-fil-A has done that against us, but that's not the case. They have refused service in West
Hollywood, and would not cater an event in that was held by the GLBT, they also fund anti-gay groups as well. You know what though this is America,
and if that's what they want to do so be it. I will just boycott them and that is it. For me case closed. I am sick of hearing SOME of the LGBT
whining about this crap though. I wish they would just shut up and leave it alone!!!!

Have you noticed that the mayors or Chicago, Boston and San Francisco have shut up?

They have awakened a sleeping giant. Now it's a 1st amendment issue.

Silence the opposition doesn't work here in the USA.

Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day was an incredible success. The lines were wrapped

Rosa Parks was not the only black protestor during the civil rights movement

No, she wasn't even a real protestor... she was someone who supported the movement. But she did more for the civil rights movement simply by being who
she was and letting bigotry show its ugly head than all the hairy pink tu-tu wearers in the world can ever do.

The point is that one cannot hope to be accepted unless they make themselves appear acceptable. Blacks did not point out the fact that they were
black; they pointed out the fact that they were human and were being denied the rights available to all other humans based on a skin color
alone. They (the ones that made the movement work) did not see themselves as superior or as needing extra rights; that (Affirmative Action) came along
much later.

The thing is, the squeaky wheel gets the oil, and sometimes you gotta make some unpleasant noise to get something done.

Around here, the squeaky wheel gets the oil, but the wheel that reuses to even turn gets thrown out.

Please don't tell me you are stereotyping ALL gays as having green mohawks and pink tutus. You don't know very many gays, I guess.

No, I am giving an example based on the number of "gay pride" events I have seen, mainly on TV.

I do not know how many "gay friends" I have... can you possibly be more degrading to another human being? Should people begin choosing friends based
on sexual preference? Why is that the single most important aspect of a person to you, so much that you categorize your friends into "gay" and
"straight" categories?

I know of a couple of people I call friend who are gay. One of them tends to "flame" a bit, but I put up with it as long as I can before telling him
to chill out. The others one would never know unless they told. It has nothing at all to do with the friendship; it has everything to do with we enjoy
each others company and have common interests.

Now, let me ask you a question: put yourself in the shoes of someone who is not gay and does not have any known gay friends... the vast
majority of those he sees are the hairy dude in the tutu. How do you expect anyone gay to be taken as anywhere near normal after that? Every time it
happens, all these fools are doing by parading up and down the street in cross-dressed underwear is showing how different they are, not the
commonality they have with all other humans!

But, I suppose that's the bigot coming out in me. I have to start looking at peoples sexuality rather than what kind of person they are, I suppose.

I've seen some pretty "abnormal" looking straight people too.

And they are usually surrounded by more straight people shaking their heads and talking about what a horse's patootie they are making of themselves.
The tutu-wearer is typically surrounded by more of the same shouting encouragement.

Look, it's obvious you are not going to get the message; no one in this debate will. You cannot legislate opinion. You cannot legislate beliefs. You
cannot legislate acceptance. All you can legislate are activities. But even then, when you go too far too fast, those beliefs and opinions will
fight against you... and you cannot imagine the true horror that can occur when a particular group becomes the perceived cause of injustice among the
masses. That is what leads to armed rebellion and widespread violence. Our laws, as imperfect as they may be at times, have kept this from happening
until now, but when those laws are used to brow-beat and intimidate rather than serve justice...

...well ... I'm just glad I am hiding and watching. Enjoy your revolution and let me know when the insane of the planet have destroyed each other. I
will have a lot to do rebuilding what people like you have destroyed.

Originally posted by okyouwin
One of the parts of the owners interview. that was overlooked, and I think a big part of his statement. was his emphasis on the fact that his and
other family members marriage was their first. This seemed to me to a bigger slam on divorce than gay marriage. Just what I saw. And I wonder how come
it didn't get no play?
.

No, I am giving an example based on the number of "gay pride" events I have seen, mainly on TV.

I do not know how many "gay friends" I have... can you possibly be more degrading to another human being? Should people begin choosing friends based
on sexual preference? Why is that the single most important aspect of a person to you, so much that you categorize your friends into "gay" and
"straight" categories?

I know of a couple of people I call friend who are gay. One of them tends to "flame" a bit, but I put up with it as long as I can before telling him
to chill out. The others one would never know unless they told. It has nothing at all to do with the friendship; it has everything to do with we enjoy
each others company and have common interests.

I bring up gay friends only because we are talking about gays in this thread - duh. My friends are not friends because they are gay. They're my
friends because I like to hang with them.

Now, let me ask you a question: put yourself in the shoes of someone who is not gay and does not have any known gay friends... the vast
majority of those he sees are the hairy dude in the tutu. How do you expect anyone gay to be taken as anywhere near normal after that? Every time it
happens, all these fools are doing by parading up and down the street in cross-dressed underwear is showing how different they are, not the
commonality they have with all other humans!

Well, television and movies usually portray most LGBT characters in a positive light. Even if you don't watch TV, you probably know who Ellen
DeGeneres is. One may not like her comedy, but she still looks pretty normal and human to me.

But, I suppose that's the bigot coming out in me.

Well, If the shoe fits.

Look, it's obvious you are not going to get the message; no one in this debate will. You cannot legislate opinion. You cannot legislate
beliefs. You cannot legislate acceptance. All you can legislate are activities. But even then, when you go too far too fast, those beliefs and
opinions will fight against you... and you cannot imagine the true horror that can occur when a particular group becomes the perceived cause of
injustice among the masses. That is what leads to armed rebellion and widespread violence. Our laws, as imperfect as they may be at times, have kept
this from happening until now, but when those laws are used to brow-beat and intimidate rather than serve justice...

True horror??? I think you are overstating just a bit.

...well ... I'm just glad I am hiding and watching. Enjoy your revolution and let me know when the insane of the planet have destroyed each
other. I will have a lot to do rebuilding what people like you have destroyed.

Well, it's comforting to know that you are here to fix everything for the rest of us. Thank God for you.

Originally posted by StalkerSolent
A lot of this conversation has centered over the issue of gay rights. Gays have the same rights non-gays do, as far as I know. They can get married
in every state, just not necessarily to people of the same gender.
To put it another way, we are NOT dealing with an equal rights problem here, unlike laws discriminating by race. (To my knowledge, there are no
current laws that discriminate against gays, unlike segregation-type laws.) Rather, proponents of homosexual marriage are either attempting to (and
in some states have succeeded) (A) manufacture the "right" of gay marriage, or (B) make everyone else recognize their inherent right to marry
someone of the same gender. Some people will say A, and some will say B, but does anyone disagree with my basic premise?
I suppose the other way to look at this is that (C) gays don't have the right to marry the person they love, which assumes everyone else has that
right. Anyone opt for C?

You're being purposely obtuse. They can't marry who they want.The "right" is a human right to live your life and be happy as long as you don't
infringe on others' rights to the same happiness.

Is disingenuous for people to say that gays have the same rights because they can marry someone of the opposite sex. That's an answer that trolls
use. To prove it, all you have to do is switch it around. If gays had the rights to marry the same sex and you didn't, would that be against your
civil right? If the answer is yes, then it's a civil rights issue and should be treated as such.

It's not hypocritical of the LGBT community to want this because it doesn't DENY the rights of others to have it. The LGBT community is INCLUSIVE.
Chik Fil A's stance is EXCLUSIVE. They want to deny the LGBT community the right of marriage to who they want.

It's not about opinions either. If you don't like anyone in the LGBT community, the vast vast majority would say that's totally fine... You'd be
hard pressed to find someone who cares that you don't like them or their attraction. But when you actively campaign against LGBT issues such as same
sex marriage, you're going past opinion into ACTION, where you'll be fought tooth and nail because you have NO right to prevent them from their
pursuit of happiness.

You're being purposely obtuse. They can't marry who they want.The "right" is a human right to live your life and be happy as long as you don't
infringe on others' rights to the same happiness.

Is disingenuous for people to say that gays have the same rights because they can marry someone of the opposite sex. That's an answer that trolls
use. To prove it, all you have to do is switch it around. If gays had the rights to marry the same sex and you didn't, would that be against your
civil right? If the answer is yes, then it's a civil rights issue and should be treated as such.

It's not hypocritical of the LGBT community to want this because it doesn't DENY the rights of others to have it. The LGBT community is INCLUSIVE.
Chik Fil A's stance is EXCLUSIVE. They want to deny the LGBT community the right of marriage to who they want.

It's not about opinions either. If you don't like anyone in the LGBT community, the vast vast majority would say that's totally fine... You'd be
hard pressed to find someone who cares that you don't like them or their attraction. But when you actively campaign against LGBT issues such as same
sex marriage, you're going past opinion into ACTION, where you'll be fought tooth and nail because you have NO right to prevent them from their
pursuit of happiness.

Your entire post seems to assume that heterosexuals have the right to marry whoever they want. Actually, part of my point was that no heterosexuals
(in the USA) has that right. They have the right to marry whoever they want under certain, limited circumstances (i.e., I can't marry my cousin.)
Humans have no right to happiness, although we do have the right to pursue happiness (though, in my humble opinion, 90% of that is contentedness.)

Where did I say they were hypocrites? I think that I mentioned that no one in the United States has the right to marry whoever they want. That right
is non-existant. Gays are not--or should not--argue for equal rights because they already have them. What I presume they are arguing for is the
right for EVERYONE to marry someone of the same gender.

The switch does not change the facts. Currently, any human being in America, no matter their sexual identity, has the limited right to marry someone
of the opposite gender under certain circumstances. Society has not yet determined whether homosexuals have the right to marry someone of the same
gender under certain circumstances. If you are appealing to Something beyond society from which you derive your rights--and I believe you are--I
applaud you. However, I think you may be hard pressed to find a Deity or principle from natural law that clarifies upon all people the right to marry
whomever they wish.

To reiterate: in the USA, we have a universal right to marry someone of the opposite gender within certain guidelines. This applies to everyone, both
homosexuals and heterosexuals. We do not have a universal right to marry whomever we want, even within the same guidelines. This also applies to
both homosexuals and heterosexuals. It makes more sense if you start thinking of people as people, instead of "straights" and "gays."

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.